Laird, you and I are having a discussion, I am not being cross-examined by you - I answer as I see fit.
Case in point:
Maybe you mean it's at the heart of the conflict in Syria? I'm no expert, and wasn't even alive at the time of the Crisis, but that seems like a pretty overblown claim. In any case, the idea that Donald Trump has acted effectively to defuse the risk of nuclear war is bizarre. I mean, tweets like "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nicer and new and ‘smart.’" aren't putting out fires - they're fanning the flames[*] - and, again, assuming the chemical attacks were faked, then the less risky choice would have been to have said so, not to have mounted an attack in a situation you believe to be as unstable as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You can't have it both ways: that this situation is as precarious as that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet at the same time that it is reasonable to mount an attack (however "symbolic") in the situation.
[*] Not to mention being disappointing and pathetic coming from a world leader. It's hard to imagine how anybody could respect this type of dick-waving.